President Obama Signs Anti-Smoking Law

President Obama knows all too well how difficult it is to quit smoking, and today he addressed his struggle to kick the habit just before signing a law he hopes will help other people put out their cigarettes too.

"Each day, 1,000 young people under the age of 18 become new, regular, daily smokers, and almost 90 percent of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday," Obama said today. "I know. I was one of these teenagers. And so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time."

The new tobacco law gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco in the same way the government regulates breakfast cereals and pharmaceuticals.

"This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship, and it was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress," Obama said today. "It's a victory for health care reform, as it will reduce some of the billions we spend on tobacco-related health care costs in this country."

Public health organizations and many lawmakers, several of whom joined Obama today for the signing, have been fighting for regulation for nearly a decade in hopes of helping an estimated 45 million adult smokers in the United States to kick their habit.

The law means the government will have the power to decide how cigarettes are advertised and monitor how they're promoted to young people. It means cigarette makers will be required to include new, larger warning graphics with more health information on their products and will be prohibited from using words like "light" and "low tar" in their marketing.

While the law does not have the power to ban cigarettes and nicotine outright, it does allow the FDA to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in tobacco products.

"Forty-five years after the first U.S. surgeon general's report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the most deadly product sold in America will no longer be the least-regulated product sold in America," said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement earlier this month when Congress passed the bill.

Within the year, a rule will also be reinstated that prohibits outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, and bans tobacco brands from sponsoring sports and entertainment events, according to the law.

At the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, CEO John R. Seffrin said the changes "will finally put an end to Big Tobacco's despicable marketing practices that are designed to addict children to its deadly products."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also pinned high hopes on the effort.

"This legislation is a key part of our plans to cut health care costs and reduce the number of Americans who smoke," Sebelius said in a June 11 statement.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 440,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, with an estimated 49,000 of those deaths due to secondhand smoke exposure.

"This legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to finally hold tobacco companies accountable and restrict efforts to addict more children and adults," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a June 11 statement. "It has been a long and challenging process to move the bill through Congress but the determination of many concerned parents and supporters has never wavered."

Federal Tobacco Law Signals Changing Times

Twenty years ago, the Senate passed a measure -- by just one vote -- that banned smoking on airplanes. Today even tobacco-producing states have smoking bans in bars and restaurants.

But giving the FDA power to regulate tobacco is a huge move that's been in the works for a long time. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled the FDA could not regulate tobacco according to current law, and many lawmakers and anti-smoking groups have been trying to change the law since.

"Tobacco products are unlike any other products on the market in that they are unusually lethal, but yet not highly regulated," FDA Commissioner Margaret "Peggy" Hamburg told a Senate panel last month as lawmakers considered her nomination for the job.

"We have tried for 10 years and we have failed," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said in a speech on the Senate floor earlier this month. "Think what kind of a difference we could have made. How many lives we would have saved if we passed this 10 years ago."

The measure cleared its final hurdles earlier this month on Capitol Hill when the House and the Senate finally passed the bill and sent it to the president to sign.

Obama quickly expressed his support for the measure -- marking a departure from President Bush, who had suggested he would veto legislation that gave the FDA authority over tobacco.

To fund the regulatory effort, the FDA will collect user fees from the tobacco industry.

Not surprisingly, much of the tobacco industry opposed the bill, but there were some major exceptions to that rule. The giant Altria, parent company of Philip Morris, took an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and supported the measure, although some complained the company contributed to a watering down of the bill.

Altria called the measure "not perfect" in a June 11 statement after the Senate voted on the measure.

"We have expressed First Amendment reservations about certain provisions, including those that could restrict a manufacturer's ability to communicate truthful information to adult consumers about tobacco products," the statement said. "We also believe that the resolution of certain issues would best be handled by rulemaking processes that involve sound scientific data and public participation."

Still, the company added, "On balance, however, the legislation is an important step forward to achieve the goal we share with others to provide federal regulation of tobacco products."

The tobacco industry has already been readying itself for a tougher U.S. regulatory environment by expanding its overseas marketing and developing new smokeless products.
Read More...

Study Links Cigarette Changes to Rising Lung Risk

It may be riskier on the lungs to smoke cigarettes today than it was a few decades ago — at least in the U.S., says new research that blames changes in cigarette design for fueling a certain type of lung cancer.

Up to half of the nation's lung cancer cases may be due to those changes, Dr. David Burns of the University of California, San Diego, told a recent meeting of tobacco researchers.

It's not the first time that scientists have concluded the 1960s movement for lower-tar cigarettes brought some unexpected consequences. But this study, while preliminary, is among the most in-depth looks. And intriguingly it found the increase in a kind of lung tumor called adenocarcinoma was higher in the U.S. than in Australia even though both countries switched to so-called milder cigarettes at the same time.

"The most likely explanation for it is a change in the cigarette," Burns said in an interview — and he cited a difference: Cigarettes sold in Australia contain lower levels of nitrosamines, a known carcinogen, than those sold in the U.S.

That's circumstantial evidence that requires more research, he acknowledged.

But anti-smoking advocates are citing the study as Congress considers whether the Food and Drug Administration should regulate tobacco, legislation that would give the agency power to decide such things as whether to set caps on certain chemicals in tobacco smoke.

Smokers once tended to get lung cancer in larger air tubes, particularly a type named "squamous cell carcinoma." Then doctors noticed a jump in adenocarcinoma, which grows in small air sacs far deeper in the lung. Initial studies blamed introduction of filtered, lower-tar cigarettes. When smokers switched, they began inhaling more deeply to get their nicotine jolt, pushing cancer-causing smoke deeper than before.

Burns' study, presented at a meeting of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, took a closer look. He compared smoking behaviors of different age groups over four decades — how much they smoked, when they started, when they quit — and how cancer-risk changed.

The risk of squamous cell carcinoma stayed about the same over those years, Burns found. But adenocarcinoma rose. It makes up 65 percent to 70 percent of newly occurring U.S. lung cancer cases, but no more than 40 percent of Australia's lung cancer, he said.

While the nation's total lung cancer cases have inched down as the number of smokers has dropped in recent years, the study suggests an individual smoker's risk of getting cancer is higher.

It's well known that cigarettes differ from country to country, because of different tobacco crops grown locally and smokers' varying tastes. Nitrosamines are a byproduct of tobacco processing and levels vary for several reasons, including differences in curing practices.

Australian cigarettes contain about 20 percent of the nitrosamine content of U.S. cigarettes, making the chemical a prime suspect, concluded Burns, who has been scientific editor of several surgeon general reports on tobacco.

That doesn't rule out a role for deeper inhaling, cautioned Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society: "There's several strong suspects in the lineup. They may have acted in combination."

Philip Morris USA spokesman David Sutton called the study speculative and hard to evaluate until it's published in a medical journal, something Burns plans to do.

Still, Philip Morris, which supports FDA tobacco regulation, began taking steps with its growers in 2000 that have yielded "significantly lower" nitrosamine levels in recent years' supplies, Sutton said.

Be careful in assuming lower-nitrosamine cigarettes are less lethal, said Dr. Neal Benowitz of the University of California, San Francisco, a well-known tobacco expert. Lung cancer is only one of tobacco's many risks — it causes heart disease and other killer diseases, too.

"If you reduce someone's (lung cancer) risk by 10 percent, that's not really meaningful for an individual," he said. "The goal still is to get them to stop."
Read More...

Should FDA Have the Power to Regulate Tobacco?

Smokes may be more deadly than ever. Even President Obama has said it's been a challenge to quit.
But according to federal law, the Food and Drug Administration does not have the power to regulate cigarettes, despite repeated efforts to grant it this authority.

That could soon change if legislation now before a Senate panel makes headway on Capitol Hill.

"Over the years, this bill has been reviewed and vetted and debated over and over and over again," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said at today's meeting of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee. "I think all of us believe the time has come to act."

The panel started considering a bill today that would give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco just as it already has for food and drugs. With dozens of amendments to wade through, the committee will continue Wednesday afternoon.

Newfound authority over tobacco would mean the FDA could hold cigarette manufacturers to the same standards for quality control and marketing that it holds makers of breakfast cereals and pharmaceuticals. It could also move to reduce nicotine levels and harmful chemicals in cigarettes.

And it could mean cigarette makers would be required to include new, larger warning graphics with more health information on their products and would be prohibited from using words like "light" and "low tar" in their marketing.

The effort introduced on both sides of the Hill -- by Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., in the Senate and Calif. Democrat Henry Waxman in the House -- would also give the FDA the power to decide how cigarettes are advertised and authority to monitor how they're promoted to youth.

The legislation would not have the power to ban cigarettes and nicotine outright.

"Tobacco products are unlike any other products on the market in that they are unusually lethal, but yet not highly regulated," FDA Commissioner Margaret "Peggy" Hamburg told the Senate panel May 7 as lawmakers were considering her nomination for the job.

"One can never count on anything in the United States Senate," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told ABCNews.com today. "But this is a bill that has been around for a long time -- whose support has increased with every Congress -- and includes senior respected Republicans among its supporters."

Still, it won't be easy to overcome resistance to the measure.

"Our hope is that the Senate HELP committee will resist all of those efforts to weaken the legislation," Myers added today.

A similar measure was passed last month by the full House. If passed by the Senate panel and then the full chamber, the House and Senate would work to iron out the differences before sending it to the White House for Obama's signature.

Unlike former President Bush, who suggested he'd veto legislation to give the FDA authority over tobacco, Obama has said he supports it.

The Politics of Smoking

It's not a new fight on Capitol Hill. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled the FDA could not regulate tobacco according to current law. Many lawmakers and anti-smoking groups have been trying to change the law since.

In late July 2008, under the previous Congress, House lawmakers passed a similar measure. At that time, the same Senate panel, voting on the measure today, approved the measure. The effort never made it all the way to the White House.

Some who oppose the legislation say the FDA may not be up to the task. Others have said oversight over tobacco goes against the agency's mission to protect the public health.

"How does the FDA regulate a product that is neither safe nor beneficial to public health?" Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. asked Hamburg at her recent confirmation hearing. "If the tobacco legislation becomes law, how does the FDA intend to obtain the necessary resources in order to carry out this responsibility, especially when it lacks the resource to conduct its current responsibilities?"

Hamburg, confirmed by the Senate just Monday, said the FDA should take on the responsibility and would rely on user fees from the tobacco industry, called for in the bill, to fund the effort.

"I think that the FDA is the appropriate agency to regulate tobacco," she said. "It has the scientific expertise, the regulatory experience and the public health mission to do so. And I think that if done sucessfully, we can reduce smoking and we can help to make cigarettes less harmful."

Perhaps surprisingly, big tobacco producer Philip Morris also supports the bill.

"The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as passed by the House of Representatives, is not perfect and contains provisions with which we have First Amendment concerns. On balance, however, we believe it represents an important opportunity to establish a comprehensive and coherent national tobacco policy," according to a statement from Philip Morris.

Dodd today highlighted the more than 1,000 organizations that support the measure and said Congress was finally "on the cusp of winning this fight." He added that growing up with two parents who smoked, and as a smoker once himself, "I know how addictive it can be."

Republican Mike Enzi of Wyoming likewise touched on his family's personal struggle with smoking, calling tobacco "the only consumer product which, when used as directed, kills its customers."

Still, Enzi does not support the bill and says the FDA is too overworked to handle something new. He said he hoped the panel would instead take steps to fund smoking cessation programs and to ensure the safety of tobacco studies and trials.

Enzi said giving the FDA new authority over tobacco "would undermine the long history of the agency protecting and promoting the public health" and said he'd prefer the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention take on the job instead.

Dodd objected, saying the regulation and marketing of consumer products is not the CDC's expertise.

"You talk about limited authority," Enzi responded. "The FDA has one area of authority under this bill that is different than anything else they do."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 440,000 people die prematurely from smoking each year, with an estimated 49,000 of those deaths due to secondhand smoke exposure.

All of this evidence may have helped North Carolina become the first tobacco-producing state to ban smoking in restaurants and workplaces when Gov. Beverly Perdue signed that state law today.
Read More...